Re: Construct file extension

[Steven Knight]

> I rock my own vote from .cons to .pl
> 
> No wait I changed my mind again. I agree entirely that .pl should be used
> but it fixes  75% of the problem that is proper editor configuration but we
> loose the fancy icon stuff. Sure that is not very important but I plan to
> have some perl script in the same directory as the construct file and would
> like to see the difference between them.

I think there's an even more important reason to have a different
extension (.cons).  Even though the Construct file is a Perl script, you
*don't* want it executed directly by Perl.  You want to register that
cons.bat or cons.pl execute it.

(Of course, that really only applies to the top-level Construct file...)

> At the end of my previous mail I proposed that we should have the
> possibility to set whatever extension and icon one wants to avoid snatching
> Acme extension.
> 
> So:
> 
> - Cons work as before, icon and extension set or not
> - In the environment we add CONS_EXTENSION=.whatever_you_like
> - each one fixes the icon problem on his own
> 
> A last problem:
> Not having a standard extension makes sharing of construct files harder
> (well typing a -f construct.yae harder). The solution is:
> 
> CONS_EXTENSION=.whatever_you_like, .whatever_the_other_guy_likes

Sounds good.

        --SK